Fortnightly - Thermoselecthttp://www.fortnightly.com/tags/thermoselect
enReconsidering Waste-to-Energyhttp://www.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/2012/03/reconsidering-waste-energy
<div class="field field-name-field-import-deck field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Deck:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Technology and regulation changes the outlook for garbage burners.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-byline field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Byline:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Christopher Dann, et al.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-bio field-type-text-long field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Author Bio:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><b>Christopher Dann</b> and <b>Joseph Vandenberg</b> are partners with Booz &amp; Co., based in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. <b>Pramod Thota</b> is a senior associate and <b>Joshua Stillman</b> is an associate with the firm.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-volume field-type-node-reference field-label-inline clearfix"><div class="field-label">Magazine Volume:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Fortnightly Magazine - March 2012</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-import-image field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1203/images/1203-FEA3_fig1.jpg" width="1024" height="801" alt="" /></div><div class="field-item odd"><img src="http://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1203/images/1203-FEA3_fig2.jpg" width="2088" height="1093" alt="" /></div><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1203/images/1203-FEA3_fig3.jpg" width="2064" height="873" alt="" /></div><div class="field-item odd"><img src="http://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1203/images/1203-FEA3_fig4.jpg" width="2068" height="1081" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The average American generates 4.6 pounds of trash per day. Rather than simply disposing of this trash, along with other types of waste such as agricultural refuse and sewage, we can instead use it beneficially as a clean energy resource. Technologies already exist that could turn our waste into an energy fuel, solving our disposal dilemmas and energy needs simultaneously. In fact, waste in America is projected to have an energy potential of approximately 11 to 15 GW, which would amount to 20 to 25 percent of non-hydro renewable U.S. generation capacity.</p>
<p>While waste as an energy source has often been underappreciated—and as a result, under-utilized—certain characteristics make waste an attractive source of fuel for energy production. Power plants burning waste fuels have baseload characteristics, and their levelized cost of energy generation is competitive with plants burning fossil fuels. There’s also significant potential for carbon abatement through avoiding emissions of methane, a gas with 21 times the greenhouse gas impact of carbon. Additionally, technologies to produce energy from waste are mature and infrastructure development is largely de-risked by public policy financial support.</p>
<p>All of these characteristics make waste an attractive source of fuel for utilities looking to diversify their portfolios and build carbon abatement backstops and capabilities in case a future carbon regime is implemented.</p>
<h4>Disposing America’s Waste</h4>
<p>Waste disposal is big business. The U.S. spends $18 billion every year to landfill more than half of the 243 million tons of municipal solid waste it generates. However, disposal options are becoming less available. Due in large part to EPA emission regulations forcing out small landfill operators who couldn’t afford compliance measures, the number of landfills in America has shrunk from almost 8,000 to 1,900 since 1988. As generation of waste continues to increase with population and economic growth, landfills have ballooned in size, tripling over this same period. Current remaining landfill capacity is projected to last another 19 years, down from 23 years in 1991. While new capacity will be created, it’s expected to come from expansions on current sites, since permitting new landfills has become increasingly difficult.</p>
<p>With fewer but larger landfills, waste increasingly needs to travel longer distances from pickup to disposal. As the number of landfills decreases and transportation costs increase, the costs of landfill disposal will rise. Some U.S. municipalities, such as Del Norte, North Carolina and San Francisco, California, have abandoned landfilling as a disposal option all together and set zero landfill goals, much as Europe has done in recent years.</p>
<p>The need for disposal options, however, won’t disappear altogether. Although recycling has increased, especially of paper and plastics, there haven’t been dramatic improvements in recent years. From 1970 to 2000, recycling rates improved by 5 percent a year, but in the last decade they have only improved by 2 percent a year. About 34 percent of municipal solid waste (MSW) is recycled, while 70 percent of the population has access to curbside and 83 percent has access to drop-off collection programs. Last year, 54 percent of municipal solid waste still required disposal.</p>
<p>Waste is also a large environmental dilemma. Landfills contribute 20 percent of U.S. methane production, while other waste streams, such as manure management and wastewater treatment, contribute 7 percent and 4 percent, respectively <i>(see Figure 1)</i>. Since methane has 21 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, waste sources emit the equivalent of 45 coal plants—or 37 million passenger cars—in greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>In addition to global warming concerns, disposal of waste can have other environmental impacts. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports that livestock waste has caused a host of environmental problems, including leaching of nitrates and pathogens into groundwater; oversupply of nutrients that damage soil fertility; destruction of fragile ecosystems such as wetlands, mangrove swamps and coral reefs; and eutrophication of nearby water sources, whereby rivers and streams are essentially starved of oxygen by runoff. There have also been instances in the past of landfill seepage into groundwater, causing contamination. And of course landfills can create odor problems that affect land use, and complicate options for siting disposal locations.</p>
<h4>Garbage as a Clean Fuel</h4>
<p>While waste is generally perceived as a nuisance, it has hidden value as an energy fuel. One ton of municipal solid waste can produce 535 kWh of electricity through incineration. Alternatively, if the trash is dumped in a landfill, the methane gas created as the organic materials decompose can be captured and harnessed for energy use. Methane gas is also created by the decomposition of livestock and human waste and can be captured from these sources. The technology for these three processes already exists <i>(see Figure 2)</i>. Although such waste fuels currently provide only 10 percent of non-hydro U.S. renewable energy capacity, they offer an attractive opportunity for utilities.</p>
<p>The prospects for waste-to-energy development depends in part on regulatory policies, and also on economic and market drivers.</p>
<p>27 states have enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which mandate the use of renewable power for a certain percentage of retail electricity. While short-term targets have been moderate and, in many cases, reflect existing renewable generation capacity, medium-term targets are well above current capacity levels and, in total, 435 TWh of electricity per year of renewables still remains to be sourced to meet 2020 RPS goals. Many of these states struggle to find in-state resources and must purchase renewable power out of state to offset the lack of in-state availability. Waste fuel is considered a renewable energy source in most RPS states. Landfill gas to energy is considered renewable in all states, while waste incineration and anaerobic digestion are excluded in some.</p>
<p>While a carbon regime at the federal level is still uncertain, some regional and state efforts are moving forward. The California Air Resources Board has approved a cap-and-trade system under Assembly Bill 32 that will establish the first U.S. market for greenhouse gases and could provide the foundation for other regions or a national regime to follow. Compared to other renewable energy technologies, energy from waste sources can have a more significant impact on carbon reductions. While other renewable energy sources offset greenhouse gas emissions by the avoidance of fossil-fuel based generation, energy from waste sources provides the added benefit of destroying methane that otherwise would be emitted into the air <i>(see “Major Prospects in Carbon Markets”)</i>. In fact, landfill gas energy production is already a common source for the voluntary carbon offset market.</p>
<p>Significant coal-power capacity likely will be phased out with new EPA regulations on air emissions. Although forecasts of expected retirements range from 20 to 100 GW, the need for reliable power that will be removed from the system remains. Although wind and solar will continue to be important renewables, the intermittency of these resources won’t solve the grid’s need for enough baseload power generation for reliability. In comparison, energy from waste can provide continuous power every hour of every day.</p>
<p>The costs for energy from waste sources are very competitive with other clean energy technologies <i>(see Figure 3)</i>. Much like other renewable energy technologies, the upfront capital expenses make up the majority of the cost. While cost input varies based on location, project size, and materials costs, energy from waste sources undoubtedly offers a cost-competitive renewable option.</p>
<h4>Consolidating Resources</h4>
<p>Although technologies have existed for quite some time to extract the energy potential from waste sources, significant potential still hasn’t been tapped. Several factors indicate that these markets are poised for growth, and participation from mature energy players can help unleash the potential for these technologies.</p>
<p>According to the EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program, 558 landfills in the U.S. capture landfill gas and utilize it as an energy fuel. While landfill gas is predominately used to produce electricity on-site, it also can be used for heating applications or cleaned and injected directly into natural gas pipelines.</p>
<p>Yet significant landfill resources aren’t being exploited. More than 150 landfills remain to be developed with a combined potential to provide over 900 MW of power. There’s also significant potential to expand projects already in production. Operating projects might be located on landfills that are increasing in size as more waste is disposed or if projects were undersized to begin with.</p>
<p>Potential for expanding landfill gas projects in the United States exceeds 1,700 MW. California, in particular, has significant potential <i>(see “California Potential”). </i></p>
<p>Unfortunately, LFG projects are small, with the average project producing about 5 MW, as compared to the average coal plant at over 200 MW and wind farms with 50 to 100 MW. The industry is extremely fragmented, with the top 10 players owning only 50 percent of the market. Small players developing small projects create several challenges that can be mitigated by consolidation. Smaller size increases the transaction costs for utilities to enter into power purchase agreements for renewable energy, and smaller players must be vetted and project risk examined more closely. Large market leaders would mitigate the risk of service interruptions.</p>
<p>A fragmented market also has hindered traction with landfill owners. Although managing the environmental impact of landfill gas is a major concern for landfill owners, in many cases the annual revenue generated by energy sales from these systems is equivalent to what a landfill owner makes in one week in waste disposal fees. These projects are perceived as more of a risk than a major revenue stream. As such, landfill owners seek market leaders with a long operating history and a well-established track record.</p>
<p>Larger landfill-gas-to-energy players would also improve project economics. Larger players have standardized operating procedures, buying power with vendors, and can reduce project specific risk through portfolio management. Overhead can be spread over a large base and larger players can more likely fund projects internally lowering the cost of capital as compared to finding external capital. The small size of landfill gas to energy projects also makes it difficult to take advantage of the tax incentives provided to all renewable energy by the federal government. If the project developer doesn’t have the tax appetite to benefit from the incentives, as is often the case, the developer must find a third party to participate as a tax equity investor. However, the transaction costs to set up the correct structures to include tax equity players aren’t worth the benefit for such small projects.</p>
<p>Consolidation can improve the ability of the industry to develop projects with landfill owners, develop relationships with offtakers for the energy produced, and improve project economics. There’s evidence that industry consolidation is underway as six of the top 10 operators are backed by private equity and two of the largest players have explicitly stated their intentions to grow through acquisition.</p>
<h4>Big Trouble for Trash Burners</h4>
<p>Burning trash before it’s even disposed in a landfill is another approach to recovery of energy from trash. There are currently 76 U.S. waste incineration plants, which burn municipal solid waste in boilers and recover metals, producing 2,600 MW of power. Areas with high landfill disposal fees have historically been related to more waste incineration development<i> (see Figure 4)</i>. In other words, areas with the most constrained landfill capacity have introduced waste incineration solutions. However, no new waste incineration plants have been built in the U.S. in more than a decade. Several reasons suggest there will be a revival in waste incineration power production.</p>
<p>Over the years, waste incineration has been met with opposition from environmental groups for the toxins emitted from the incineration process. This negative reputation has made permitting new facilities with this technology difficult. For example, in 1989, Mayor David Dinkins of New York City proposed a waste management plan which included plans for a number of incineration facilities with advanced air pollution control systems. However, when Mayor Rudy Giuliani came into office he scrapped these plans primarily as a result of opposition from environmental organizations that were concerned about emissions. The environmental argument, however, was based on data from the emissions of incinerators in the 1980s, which was before Environmental Protection Agency regulations had been implemented. Recent evidence, in contrast, suggests that a negative environmental reputation is ill-deserved. For instance, Covanta, the largest U.S. operator, uses advanced air pollution control equipment and continuous emissions monitoring systems that operate well below and comply with strict state and federal emission standards 99.9 percent of the time. On average, waste incineration plants emit half the sulfur oxide emissions that a coal plant produces and only a little more than a natural gas plant. In terms of nitrogen oxide emissions, waste incineration emits less than either coal or natural gas plants do.</p>
<p>With increasing regulatory focus on greenhouse gas emissions, waste incineration turns from an environmental problem to an environmental solution. Even though landfill gas collection systems can be installed at landfills to capture the methane produced by trash as it decomposes, organic materials release significant methane even before a landfill gas collection system can be put in place. Waste incineration guarantees to prevent methane release from landfills. For each ton of municipal solid waste processed in a waste incineration plant, 1 ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions is avoided. EPA has stated that waste incineration plants produce electricity with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity, and in a 2009 study, identified waste incineration as the most environmentally friendly destination for urban waste that can’t be recycled.</p>
<p>Another key reason for the lull in waste-to-energy development has been the 1994 <i>Carbone</i> Supreme Court decision that largely removed the ability for municipalities to legally direct where solid waste should be disposed. Losing control of the waste flow made it very difficult for a waste-to-energy facility to contract all the solid waste in a given geographic area. Consequently, projects absorbed the additional risk of supply shortfalls, and raising debt became significantly more difficult. For example, the city of Camden, N.J., borrowed millions of dollars to build an incinerator, charging towns and businesses high tipping fees to cover the cost of the debt. The <i>Carbone</i> decision, however, ended the guaranteed supply of trash to the Camden incinerator, and since the market opened up to outside competition, tipping fees there dropped from more than $90 per ton to $65—not enough revenue to pay off the bonds. In late 2010, the country required $18 million from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to escape defaulting on a $25 million final balloon debt payment.</p>
<p>In Harrisburg, Penn., an incinerator originally built in 1972 and shut down in 2003 by the federal government due to non-compliance with air emission regulations underwent a $125 million revamp and expansion. The city was hoping to use the facility to burn trash from neighboring counties. However, some counties decided not to take their garbage to the incinerator, resulting in an oversized plant with some of the highest tipping fees in the country, and a city that’s struggling with an oppressive debt burden.</p>
<p>However, the financial troubles experienced by incinerators in Camden and Harrisburg are less likely to arise on future projects, because the <i>Carbone</i> decision was overturned in 2007 with the <i>Oneida-Herkimer</i> case. Municipalities will once again have the authority to control the flow of the waste in their geographical areas and direct it to their incinerators. Developers of new waste-to-energy facilities, who will be able to contract long-term waste supply in advance, can now take risk out of the project, easing the concerns for potential lenders.</p>
<h4>Incinerator Renaissance</h4>
<p>Although waste-to energy doesn’t qualify as a renewable energy resource in some states, it appears that the combined benefits of providing both clean power and a waste solution have begun to support growth in this industry.</p>
<p>There’s already evidence of a revival in waste incineration. Recent projects that have been approved include a $126 million Wheelabrator facility in Hawaii, a 55-MW Wheelabrator facility in Maryland, and a Covanta facility in Ontario. SNL Energy reports a development pipeline containing more than 500 MW of waste incineration projects.</p>
<p>European examples have shown that waste incineration is a preferable disposal option. While the U.S. incinerates 7 percent of its waste, the number is 51 percent for Denmark and 32 percent for Germany. As a result, Denmark has gotten down to 4 percent of waste disposed in landfill and 1 percent in Germany. This was achieved through aggressive landfilling regulations, a landfill allowance trading scheme, and the resulting high landfill fees.</p>
<p>New technology on the rise also might help the comeback for waste incineration. Although still at the demonstration stage in North America, several companies are developing other ways to turn waste into energy, aside from the traditional process used at most waste incineration facilities. Gasification, the most common alternative process, exposes solid waste to extremely high temperatures of up to 2,000 degrees C in an oxygen-limited environment to produce syngas, a flexible energy product, plus water, metals, and vitrified ash byproduct. Other alternative solutions include plasma-arc gasification, which creates a high temperature torch to gasify waste materials; and pyrolysis, which operates similar to gasification, except that the process happens in the absence of oxygen. Today 38 gasification facilities, 12 pyrolysis facilities, and 1 plasma-arc commercial facility are operating, but none are located in North America; most are in Japan, with a few located in Europe.</p>
<p>Waste management consulting firm Gershman, Brickner &amp; Bratton estimates that upward of 550 companies are either marketing or developing waste conversion technologies. Unfortunately, some of these new technologies have had trouble in the past in scaling up to commercial scale. For example, the Thermoselect plant in Karlsruhe, Germany, one of the world’s largest trash-gasification plants, was forced to close permanently in 2004 after only two years due to operational problems and more than $550 million in losses. Proposals for commercial development without proven technology have also muddied the picture. For example, <i>Palm Beach Post</i> reported that when St. Lucie County, Fla., asked for proof on the remarkable numbers in a Geoplasma plasma arc proposal, the company couldn’t provide it, and the county’s hired consultant thus determined that there was no evidence supporting the technological and economic claims.</p>
<p>However, although there have been some stumbles in the past, as alternative combustion technologies mature and winners emerge, commercial viability and technological confidence will take hold.</p>
<h4>Wet Waste Prospects</h4>
<p>Wet waste, wherein the composition of solids is less than 15 percent, such as livestock waste and sewage, can’t be incinerated efficiently in the same manner as municipal solid waste. These waste streams employ anaerobic digestion, which uses bacteria to accelerate the decomposition of organic materials quickly to produce compost and methane. The technology has long been applied to sewage to reduce the volume of waste needing to be disposed. However, this technology hasn’t yet been widely used for power generation. While methane production is a byproduct of the anaerobic digestion process, only 104 of the almost 700 wastewater treatment plants with anaerobic digesters have power generation capabilities. Anaerobic digestion is also being utilized on farms to process livestock waste, but only 67 MW of capacity is currently operating in the U.S.</p>
<p>One challenge for the increased adoption of anaerobic digestion is project size. A wastewater treatment plant with 4 million gallons of wastewater flow per day can generate enough biogas to produce 100 kW of electric capacity. A medium-sized dairy farm with 1,000 cows produces about 250 kW of power. Small project size has kept larger developers from pursuing development, and has left operators with responsibility for implementation. But business models being used to develop distributed photovoltaic solar can help accelerate implementation. For example, third-party ownership with leasing structures and O&amp;M agreements can take the capital and operational risk off the facility owner and place responsibility in the hands of those that focus on energy production. <i>(See “Solar Leasing Shines,” p.16.) </i></p>
<p>Anaerobic digestion also benefits from economies of scale. A biogas energy production system including the anaerobic digester could cost $10,000/kW for a 250-head dairy farm, $4,100/kW for a 1,000-cow farm, and $2,600/kW for a 4,000-cow farm. Over the last few years, industrial farming has consolidated, and the average size farm has increased significantly. From 1999 to 2009, the percentage of farms under 500 heads decreased from 65 percent to 51 percent. The larger the industrial farms get, the more opportunity there will be to utilize anaerobic digestion technology to produce energy economically.</p>
<p>Anaerobic digestion also has been the target for recent policy initiatives. WE Energies in Wisconsin offers a 15-year feed-in tariff for biogas power generation from anaerobic digesters that amounts to $155/MWh on-peak and $61/MWh off-peak. Minnesota offers a $10 to $15/MWh production incentive for anaerobic digesters. In California, the recent enactment of SB 489 allows biogas systems less than 1 MW to receive the same net metering treatment that distributed PV power has received in the past. This allows farmers that implement anaerobic digesters to sell their power to the grid at retail rates.</p>
<p>Like waste incineration, anaerobic digestion has been adopted much more aggressively in Europe. Germany, with 70 percent world market share of the biogas market, produced in 2006 more than 1,100 MW of capacity from biogas from 6,800 digesters. Austria, France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and Finland operate another 1,945 digesters. These countries have predominately incentivized these systems to provide vehicle fuel. Germany and Austria have mandates requiring that 20 percent biogas be used in natural gas vehicles. Feed-in tariffs have been established for biogas in Germany and half of Sweden’s nearly 11,500 natural gas vehicles are powered by biogas.</p>
<p>The U.S. market for anaerobic digestion is currently very small, but has large opportunity for growth. According to EPA, livestock waste could be used to generate 1,667 MW of power, and wastewater treatment could produce another 411 MW. This infers penetration of 4 percent and 32 percent, respectively. With costs coming down, regulatory incentives in place, and the opportunity to import business models from other distributed generation markets, energy from wet waste is poised for growth.</p>
<h4>A New Future for Garbage</h4>
<p>While all renewable resources will be needed to diversify America’s generation portfolio, energy from waste sources provides excellent benefits to the energy industry. The technology is low-cost, renewable, and produces power at a constant and reliable rate. Under a carbon regime, avoiding methane emissions can generate enormous economic value in carbon markets and, although the technology is relatively mature, the markets for applying these solutions are relatively untapped. It’s time that the U.S. market caught up with Europe, which has already made large strides in utilizing waste for energy, a resource that could increase renewable capacity by 20 to 25 percent.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field-collection-container clearfix"><div class="field field-name-field-sidebar field-type-field-collection field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><div class="field-collection-view clearfix view-mode-full"><div class="entity entity-field-collection-item field-collection-item-field-sidebar clearfix">
<div class="content">
<div class="field field-name-field-sidebar-title field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar Title:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Major Prospects in Carbon Markets</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-sidebar-body field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar Body:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><!--smart_paging_autop_filter--><!--smart_paging_filter--><p>While the timing and nature of carbon legislation at the national level is still uncertain, some regional and state efforts at putting a price on carbon are continuing. Projects creating energy from waste can greatly benefit from a price on carbon emissions. Not only does energy produced from waste offset the use of fossil fuels—which emit carbon dioxide when burned—but these projects also prevent emissions of methane, a gas with 21 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. This additional greenhouse gas abatement benefit can provide considerable returns for project owners.</p><p>Take, as an example, landfill gas-to-energy projects. For every megawatt hour of energy produced from landfill, about 0.6 tons of carbon dioxide is avoided by offsetting fossil-fuel combustion, and about 4.7 tons are avoided by preventing methane emissions—assuming the methane isn’t already being captured and flared. At $20 a ton for carbon emissions allowances, landfill gas-fired electricity is worth about $106/MWh. In comparison, a wind project, which only offsets fossil fuel power, would provide about $12/MWh of value at $20 a ton of CO<sub>2</sub>.</p><p>Carbon revenue would supplement—in fact, likely exceed—the project’s main source of revenue, power purchase agreements currently ranging from $40 to $130/MWh, depending on location. What’s more, power prices likely would rise with carbon pricing trickling down through wholesale electricity rates, helping the economics of these projects.</p><p>The landfill gas-to-energy project example would hold true for other projects using waste to produce energy. With the added benefit of reducing methane emissions, energy from waste sources is an important carbon abatement option.–<span><span class="bolditalic">JV et al.</span></span></p></div></div></div> </div>
</div>
</div></div><div class="field-item odd"><div class="field-collection-view clearfix view-mode-full field-collection-view-final"><div class="entity entity-field-collection-item field-collection-item-field-sidebar clearfix">
<div class="content">
<div class="field field-name-field-sidebar-title field-type-text field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar Title:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">California Potential</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-sidebar-body field-type-text-long field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Sidebar Body:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><!--smart_paging_autop_filter--><!--smart_paging_filter--><p>California could turn out to be a large growth opportunity for the landfill gas-to-energy market. The state has the highest electricity prices in the country. Renewable energy contracts are negotiated at prices relative to a market price referent, which currently ranges from $95 to $130/MWh. Also, California recently increased its renewable portfolio standard to 33 percent by 2020 and set up a market for unbundled tradable renewable energy credits. Although this market is still in its infancy, experts estimate fair value between $10 and $20/MWh. Additionally, under AB 32, the California Air Resources Board recently approved a cap-and-trade market to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets in the state. Although landfill emissions isn’t a capped sector, energy prices in the state likely will increase, improving the economics of landfill gas-to-electricity, and project developers can sell the methane captured and used at landfills as offsets.</p><p>For smaller landfill gas-to-energy projects, newly passed SB 489 can be a huge help for project economics; under the law, projects smaller than 1 MW of capacity can sell power to the grid at retail rates.</p><p>Along with favorable economics drivers, there’s significant potential for development. More than 30 undeveloped landfills in the state could be developed to produce more than 200 MW of power. There’s also the potential for over 400 MW by expanding on sites with operating projects. CalRecycle reports that only 51 percent of the methane captured at California landfills is being recovered for landfill gas projects, while 49 percent is flared.</p><p>Over the coming years as all the recent policy initiatives take hold, California could be a boon for landfill gas-to-energy.–<span><span class="bolditalic">JV et al.</span></span></p></div></div></div> </div>
</div>
</div></div></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-category field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix"><h3 class="field-label">Category (Actual): </h3><ul class="links"><li class="taxonomy-term-reference-0"><a href="/article-categories/renewables">Renewables</a></li></ul></div><div class="field field-name-field-members-only field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Viewable to All?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-article-featured field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Featured?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-image-picture field-type-image field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Image Picture:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.fortnightly.com/sites/default/files/article_images/1203/images/1203-FEA3.jpg" width="554" height="720" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-fortnightly-40 field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Fortnightly 40?:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-law-lawyers field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Is Law &amp; Lawyers:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above clearfix">
<div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<a href="/tags/anaerobic-digestion">Anaerobic digestion</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/california-air-resources-board">California Air Resources Board</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/consolidation">Consolidation</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/covanta">Covanta</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/environmental-protection-agency">Environmental Protection Agency</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/epa">EPA</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/feed-tariffs">Feed-in tariffs</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/food-and-agriculture-organization-united-nations">Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/gasification">Gasification</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/geoplasma">Geoplasma</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/landfill">Landfill</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/landfill-methane-outreach-program">Landfill Methane Outreach Program</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/methane">Methane</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/msw">MSW</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/new-jersey">New Jersey</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/new-jersey-department-environmental-protection">New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/oneida-herkimer">Oneida-Herkimer</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/outreach">Outreach</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/pv">PV</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/rps">RPS</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/snl-energy">SNL Energy</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/solar">Solar</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/solar-leasing-shines">Solar Leasing Shines</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/thermoselect">Thermoselect</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/we-energies">WE Energies</a><span class="pur_comma">, </span><a href="/tags/wheelabrator">Wheelabrator</a> </div>
</div>
Thu, 01 Mar 2012 05:00:00 +0000puradmin13408 at http://www.fortnightly.com